Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The Fly’s Adaptive Aerodynamics

Recent experiments have revealed that when perturbed in flight, a fruit fly can recover its heading to within 2 degrees in less than a tenth of a second. Here’s how the researchers describe the results:

This is yet another example of evolutionary euphemism. Recovery from flight disturbances is a complex, fine-tuned capability integrating sensors, algorithms and actuators. Not the stuff of random mutations. So the evolutionary euphemism compares it with the Wright brothers and their flying machines.

Pioneering studies performed on tethered and dissected insects demonstrate that the sensory, neurological, and musculoskeletal systems play important roles in flight control.

High-speed video and a new motion tracking method capture the aerial “stumble,” and we discover that flies respond to gentle disturbances by accurately returning to their original orientation. These insects take advantage of a stabilizing aerodynamic influence and active torque generation to recover their heading to within 2 degrees in less than 60 ms. To explain this recovery behavior, we form a feedback control model that includes the fly’s ability to sense body rotations, process this information, and actuate the wing motions that generate corrective aerodynamic torque.

The fly’s sensors are tiny sensors known as halteres, structures that evolutionists have considered to be rudimentary—evolutionary leftovers. Now we’re told they just happened to evolve fantastic gyroscopic sensing capabilities, which just happened to be sent to the fly’s neurological circuits, which just happened to compute meaningful flight control maneuvers, which just happened to be sent to the fly’s musculoskeletal system. No wonder evolutionists resort to euphemisms.

Thus, like early man-made aircraft and modern fighter jets, the fruit fly employs an automatic stabilization scheme that reacts to short time-scale disturbances.

An automatic stabilization scheme for short time-scale disturbances that just happened to arise? Religion drives science, and it matters.

120 comments:

It doesn't really matter how complex living organisms are; some people convince themselves to belive that random events followed by natural selections can create anything. This will sound like a totally irrational belief to most people, but the "believers" will even claim thet it is a "proven fact". If you ask where the proof is, however, you will never get a straight answer; none of them can point directly to the evidence they claim exists.The proof is in the millions of pieces of evidence, we are told, and only non-belivers are too ignorant to see the truth, obviously....

Everything just happened to happen, because it happened to happen, because that's how things happen! Or else you're religious, or don't believe in Darwin, which is also something that just happened to happen, but can be ignored because it happened for no reason, and results in inconvenient questions about how things just happened to happen : )

An automatic stabilization scheme for short time-scale disturbances that just happened to arise?

No, one that evolved over time through the observed evolutionary iterative process of genetic variations filtered by selection. That's what the evidence shows. That you're still too honesty-challenged to accurately portray the science involved is quite pathetic.

The fly’s sensors are tiny sensors known as halteres, structures that evolutionists have considered to be rudimentary—evolutionary leftovers. Now we’re told they just happened to evolve fantastic gyroscopic sensing capabilities, which just happened to be sent to the fly’s neurological circuits, which just happened to compute meaningful flight control maneuvers, which just happened to be sent to the fly’s musculoskeletal system.

Actually, it’s been known for some time that the halteres of flies are gyroscopic stabilizers:

Fraenkel, G. (1939), The Function of the Halteres of Flies (Diptera). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, A109: 69–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1939.tb00049.x

Cornelius:An automatic stabilization scheme for short time-scale disturbances that just happened to arise?

Thorton:No, one that evolved over time through the observed evolutionary iterative process of genetic variations filtered by selection.

If it "just evolved" over time due to variations and selections, it still "just happened to arise".

We can observe genetic variations.We can observe the "natural selection".

But observing variations and "selection" only tells us tat variations and selection occurs.Beliveing that random variations followed by "natural selection" is enough to create the immense complexity we also can observe, is just a belief.Some would even call it a very irrational belief...

Thorton:That's what the evidence shows.

What evidence?Be specific, please. Give us the evidence that proves randomness and selection can create a living organism.

In Diptera, the formation of the haltere during metamorphosis is dependent on the homeotic gene Ultrabithorax (Ubx). If this gene is experimentally deactivated, the haltere will develop into a fully developed wing. (Wikipedia)

So it wouldn't be that much of a stretch for the Great Lord of the Flies to take a wing with its connected musculature and neurons, and tweak it into a balance organ.

No, usually I don’t have anything profound to say. The thing is we had some discussions in the past about OOL and stuff. Many people would jump from step 1 to 950 immediately. Than we have a situation, you see. It’s the step 2 that’s tricky. Would you agree?BTW,did you guys like youtube video?

We can observe genetic variations.We can observe the "natural selection".

But observing variations and "selection" only tells us tat variations and selection occurs.

Thorton:We also observe that the effects of the two processes working together produce biological variation. That's evolution.

Biological variation=evolution??!Ok, then I guess evolution IS a proven fact...However, I guess maybe some people might have a different definition of evolution.

Beliveing that random variations followed by "natural selection" is enough to create the immense complexity we also can observe, is just a belief.Some would even call it a very irrational belief...

Thorton:Tell that to the companies which do millions of dollars in business using evolution-based genetic algorithms to produce new, complex designs.

This is just fantastic, then; we no longer need to pay expensive engineers for designing; some clever guy came up with the idea that we let evolution do the designing for us!How long would it take for one of these "evolution-based genetic algorithms" to evolve a TV, for example? Do you have a rough estimate?The only problem I can see, however, might be that we will have to reverse engineer every new design to actually find out how it works; this might sound like a bigger job than actually do the designing from scratch...

And, again, have you got an example of a new, complex state of the art design that just popped up by using this "design by evolution" method?

Be specific, please. Give us the evidence that proves randomness and selection can create a living organism.

Thorton:Randomness and selection create biological features as described in the OP.

Thats not evidence, Thorton; thats just the same claim once more.I want specific evidence that prove randomness and selection can create complex, functional designs, since you claim this proof exists.

"Well, Mr. Materialist, since you don't believe blorptogoplast exists independently of matter, it is up to you to prove it doesn't exist!"======

Rather than continue down yet another deadend road of smarta§§isms, why don't you just explain to your "Safety in Numbers Gang" (Atheist Friends) what you meant by this comment back in July 2010 ??? You never actually ever explain anything specifically but as true to your nature use the usual vague terms. Of couse this is not unusual, since by nature most soap box shouting Theistic Evolutionists never do:

"I believe that Jesus was the messiah, son of God and that he was crucified and raised from the dead and that we are all here by the intention of God and through his providence; yet I also accept that the theory of evolution as commonly understood as natural selection acting on heritable variation is a fairly accurate description of the process that God used to bring us about."======

So you believe the human Jesus whom other humans killed to be your god ??? You claim that evolutionary processes were used by your god Jesus Christ to bring life about. Yet rather than any specific detailed proofs, you offer only vague generalities so as not to offend your brothers here (or to avoid incurring their vicious sarcasm and wrath). Could you now more boldly be more specific and detailed about how your god Jesus Christ was the one responsible for the encryption of evolutionary informational code into that first original RNA/DNA primitive lifeform and then sat back and just let chaos to take over ???

Help out all the Agent Mulders out there who "Just Want To Believe" !!!

"I don't consider Genesis 1 to be a literal account of how God created the universe, . . "======

Perhaps you can explain to all of us observers just why your god Jesus Christ as mentioned in the Bible's New Testament, was quoting and referencing the Genesis creation account of the origin of man/woman as an actual fact ???

Now if your god Jesus Christ actually used evolution in OOL, then why did he lie to those onlookers by quoting the Genesis account as being a fact and yet not just explain the honest to god's truth in simple terms along the same mythical fable line of the ancient Greeks who already had their own evolution of man from fish mythology story ???

bornagain77: THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient 'living' fossils that have not changed for millions of years

Though shrimp have retained many features over time, there are substantial differences between modern shrimp and ancient shrimp. Indeed, there are thousands of extant species of shrimp, even though to you they may all look alike.

It was maybe a month or two ago on this blog. I could dig it up. We know what would happen: I would be saying 2+2=4 and somebody would try to convince me it is not.

I know. Life is hard when you assert things on a blog and are asked to back them up.

Here is an example: do you think mathematics is material or immaterial?

I think that mathematics are abstract constructs of human minds and that human minds cannot exist independent of brain activity. So I see your question as posing a false dichotomy, based on a fallacious assumption that the word “immaterial” refers to real things that can exist independent of human minds.

Funny, as the dogma dictates, evolution has no need of requiring any goals. The NASA website actually lists six areas of purposed research and goals. This isn't true evolution. Evolution is ungided, undirected without purpose or intent. In fact it's pointless. This is loaded with nothing more than the intelligent design fingerprints of an Engineer all over it. The selection was artificial as opposed to anything natural. Or perhaps you consider humans being nothing more than animals and therefore a part of nature anyway so it's a loophole thingy. Plus the project employed algorithms, which are also hallmarks of intelligent guidance. Hmmmmmmm, try again slick.

This is the same failed lame example you gave before. It has nothing to do with evolution except with a mere lable attachment to appease the priesthood in charge of Emperor worship to Darwin.

"I think that mathematics are abstract constructs of human minds and that human minds cannot exist independent of brain activity."======

So who or what is controlling your thoughts in posting on this blog ??? Is it your own consciousness or just blind pointless molecules and protons bouncing around inside your skull ??? If it's nothing more than the later, then how do these blind forces actually know what to say and how to respond ???

Funny, as the dogma dictates, evolution has no need of requiring any goals. The NASA website actually lists six areas of purposed research and goals.

Hey dummy, the request was to show examples of where the process of random variation filtered by selection produces complex objects. NASA's evolutionary algorithms do exactly that. Do try to comprehend the question before popping off.

"Hey dummy, the request was to show examples of where the process of random variation filtered by selection produces complex objects. NASA's evolutionary algorithms do exactly that. Do try to comprehend the question before popping off."======

There's nothing blind and random about it if design requirements are necessary imputs into the thing. It's simply a crappy example of what your fogma demands. Don't like it ??? Find a new church!!!-------

Thorton:

"Have you figured out what mushroom bodies are yet?"======

I see you didn't read my further response either any more than BobbyC refused to, of why I used the stupid example in the first place. But if it makes you feel any better, powerful and superior, then go for it Genius. I appreciate as you yourself have stated, this is your watch and you have no other life than Cornelius's blog which clearly for whatever reason infuriates you. LOL

So who or what is controlling your thoughts in posting on this blog ??? Is it your own consciousness or just blind pointless molecules and protons bouncing around inside your skull ??? If it's nothing more than the later, then how do these blind forces actually know what to say and how to respond ???

I would ask similar question.

Name the protein or organelle that makes us self aware. Oh, is this a fallacious assumption, too?If you can name material process that produces consciousness you have convert - me.

I want specific evidence that prove randomness and selection can create complex, functional designs, since you claim this proof exists.

Thorton:NASA Evolvable Systems Group

(Ahh, electronic circuit design; my field of "expertise".... I guess :) )These filters, antennas, amplifiers, etc. do not just "create themselves"; there are actually engineers who knows a little something about circuit design involved in the process to actually get a meaningful design.

A filter, for example, might of course be optimized by contiously randomly varying parameters like compnent values and topologies, and "evolving" the design using some predefined "fittness-function". But none of these circuits ever "evolved" without the input of some skilled intelligence somewhere in the designprocess; you don't get a filter if you don't start out with the intention to create a filter.

(These "genetic algorithms" operate on the same priciple as Dawkins infamous Weasel-program, where a random sequence of caharcters "evolve" into the sentence METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL, by random canges followed by a fitness funtion selection.)Thanks for being more specific with your example, at least, but I am still very curious about how this proves anything to you about the ability of randomness and selection to create comlex, functional designs.

Thanks for being more specific with your example, at least, but I am still very curious about how this proves anything to you about the ability of randomness and selection to create comlex, functional designs.

You asked for an example of how the PROCESS of random variation filtered by selection produces complex objects. I showed you a concrete, real world example of the PROCESS doing exactly that.

You make a big deal about this example having a goal (i.e. produce an antenna with specific characteristics). It did, but there was no guidance at all as to how that solution was implemented.

Biological life has a goal too. It's to live long enough to produce one more generation, with no guidance whatsoever as to how that solution is implemented.

"It did, but there was no guidance at all as to how that solution was implemented."======

This is bull. Even they admitted they had to tell the stupid thing EXACTLY what they wanted and the thing engineered a design as close to whatever specifications they fed into it. Then, THEY(engineers) SELECTED for it. I thought Natural Selection had no purpose, goal or direction. So why do humans have to do the selecting here but then Darwinian evolution gets the credit ???

Natural Selection is also supposed to have no requirements. Yet as quoted above, all those projects fed into the computer's software had nothing but requirements given it by the intelligent designing brains of all those human engineers.

This is just nothing more than a Safety in Numbers gang perpetuating a fraud and scam through and through. No doubt "Blind Faith" is alive and well since the faithful will invent ways to excuse the fraud. Unfortunately for you, it makes you look like a fool for defending and making excuses for the stupid thing. Seriously here, you need to get a clue fast!!!

Wrong, the NASA Algorithm software program example is a rediculous insanely dishonest example. All of those programs have to be rigged specifically for what ever design the Engineer is looking for. For instance this quote comes to mind from their website:

"WE TOLD THE COMPUTER PROGRAM WHAT PERFORMANCE THE ANTENNA SHOULD HAVE, and the computer simulated evolution [sic], keeping the best antenna designs that approached WHAT WE ASKED FOR."http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/pdf/145531main_06_03astrogram.pdf

The entire system wreaks of intelligent design and is not a true example of any unguided undirected pointlessness without purpose or intent which are supposed to all substitute for intelligent design.The next thing that STINKS is that all those specifically written and manipulated rigged softwares for all those different projects which are technically designed by an engineer for each unique task are then suddenly plagerized and given to Darwin for the credit ??? Suddenly lying and fudging the truth are no problem if it's for the politically correct cause/side.

EocenePerhaps you can explain to all of us observers just why your god Jesus Christ as mentioned in the Bible's New Testament, was quoting and referencing the Genesis creation account of the origin of man/woman as an actual fact ???

I don't know Eocene, you'd have to ask him. He also called mustard seeds the 'smallest of seeds', so perhaps his goals were something other than science lessons.

EoceneNow if your god Jesus Christ actually used evolution in OOL, then why did he lie to those onlookers by quoting the Genesis account as being a fact and yet not just explain the honest to god's truth in simple terms

Well, first of all, OOL and evolution are two different things, but apparently it's futile to try to explain that to a creationist. Secondly, I don't know. Would you say he was lying when he repeatedly confirmed the idea that physical ailments were caused by evil spirits and not by micro-organisms or genetic defects? I personally don't think so; but you may have a different opinion. I guess that by your criteria, for him not to have explained that micro-organisms cause disease or that the earth moves around the sun constitutes 'lying.'

EoceneSo you believe the human Jesus whom other humans killed to be your god ???

Yes, and Eocene, you even reference the post where I affirm that very thing; I don't know how to make it any clearer. This is now at least the 10th time you've asked me the exact same question. Does anyone else here feel like I didn't make my belief about the identity of Jesus abundantly clear?

EoceneYou claim that evolutionary processes were used by your god Jesus Christ to bring life about.

As I've explained to you many, many, many times before: Yes, In the same way that geologic processes were used to bring mountains about, and meteorological processes are used to bring rain about. I really can't figure out why you're so vehemently singling out biology as somehow different from every other discipline of study.

EoceneYet rather than any specific detailed proofs,

Proofs of what? Evolution? I've never claimed to have proof of evolution, only that corroborating evidence is abundant. (well, they do tend to hide it away in 'books'; perhaps in a conspiracy to keep it away from people like yourself) Or do you mean Christianity? I also never have claimed to have proof, or even empirical evidence of Christianity. I've explained not only my reasons for accepting Christianity, but I fully admit that I don't hold to them dogmatically or consider others intellectually inferior for disagreeing with me on the subject.

Eoceneyou offer only vague generalities so as not to offend your brothers here

I generally don't worry about offending people; though I don't usually go out of my way to do it for no reason. If someone says something profoundly stupid, like you very often do, I feel free to let them know it. I often value straightforwardness over tact.

Eocene(or to avoid incurring their vicious sarcasm and wrath).

I have no aversion to either of these two. In fact, I find it quite humorous to incur the 'wrath' of borderline illiterate people such as yourself.

EoceneCould you now more boldly be more specific and detailed about how your god Jesus Christ was the one responsible for the encryption of evolutionary informational code into that first original RNA/DNA primitive lifeform and then sat back and just let chaos to take over ???

Since I've never claimed anything of the sort, obviously there is no need for me to defend that statement. In fact, I'm quite sure I've made it clear that I accept that the origin of life probably was not a supernatural event any more than the later diversification of it was.

"Eocene, you need to get some professional help with anger management. Your spittle flying obscenity laden rants are getting scary."=====

Once again you have no answer and your continued use of the bogus NASA Evolutionary Algorithm Software Program as a prime example of randomness and natural selection continues to be a LIE and couldn't be further from the truth.

"He also called mustard seeds the 'smallest of seeds', so perhaps his goals were something other than science lessons."=====

How fascinating, you're quick to apply a mere illustrative application lesson of something taken from a common human prespective of that time period, yet you'll condemn the Genesis account at the drop of a hat(again to appease your buddies) as being nothing more than something that should be taken literally because a YEC worldview should be attacked at any and all costs for the truth(something I agree with BTW). But in this case it wreaks of hypocracy.-----

Derick Childress:

"Well, first of all, OOL and evolution are two different things, but apparently it's futile to try to explain that to a creationist."=====

Agin, more atheistic equivocational refuse. Blind Chanced undirected unguided unpurposed Evolution is the non driver for everything. Only an atheist desparately attempts to separate OOL from the word/term evoluion. Yet it's the SAME unproven bogus concept of undirectness, nonguidance, no purpose, no intent, just blind pointless pitiless indifference is the same mechanism for inert molecules MAGICALLY arranging themselves into that first complex lifeform. Nice fail.

"I don't know. Would you say he was lying when he repeatedly confirmed the idea that physical ailments were caused by evil spirits and not by micro-organisms or genetic defects?"======

That's not the point and you know it, but again you are arguing again from an Atheistic perspective when you know that that one particular instance was not true. So you don't believe fallen angellic agents exist ??? Your god says they do. Is he lying ???------

Derick Childress:

"I really can't figure out why you're so vehemently singling out biology as somehow different from every other discipline of study."======

That's because you have a materialist mind and can't grasp the understanding that this is no more than a fight against lies and a support of the truth. Your god Jesus called Satan a liar and the Father of the Lie. Is Jesus again lying about this ???------

Derick Childress:

"I also never have claimed to have proof, or even empirical evidence of Christianity. I've explained not only my reasons for accepting Christianity, but I fully admit that I don't hold to them dogmatically or consider others intellectually inferior for disagreeing with me on the subject."======

I find this fascinating because the Bible condemns lazy blind faith and requires people to actually research and find out the truth of matters.------

Derick Childress:

"I'm quite sure I've made it clear that I accept that the origin of life probably was not a supernatural event any more than the later diversification of it was."======

Wow, how fascinating. So your god Jesus Christ, the uncaused cause never lifted a finger in OOL ??? Then what makes him god, which means life giver ??? Why does Colosians 1 call him the "firstborn of ALL creation" ??? Why does Psalm 8 describe Jesus role as a "Masterworker" or Master Craftsman" working along side his father during creation ???

Pretty sad that you have to resort to the all too common Creationist tactic of lying for Jesus. You were given multiple examples of things that if found would falsify ToE. All you can do is lie and pretend they weren't presented. And you're still too stupid to understand the difference between not falsifiable and not falsified.

Take a number dimbulb, and get in line with the rest of the Creationist clowns.

"More word games. OK then, what would falsify the idea of an Intelligent Designer 'poofing' everything into existence?"=====

This is humorous. People who actually do believe in an intelligent designer already have a foundational understanding of how things work in the real world. Things like how actual designing and manufacturing of complex things in the real world takes place. That complex sophisticated and techically amazing things do not self arrange themselves without purpose or intent.

The actual realm Luck-Magic-Chance is YOUR Trinitarian false god. You are the one who believes in things insta-poofing, not Christians. Why is it that such a self-proclaimed genius such as yourself has to be constantly reminded of what YOUR OWN belief actually is ??? Blind undirected and unguided without purpose or intent. Thus far the ONLY example we get are the blind unguided undirectedness shown us with the incoherence of your thinking as illustrated by every one of your posts.------

Thorton:

"You were given multiple examples of things that if found would falsify ToE. All you can do is lie and pretend they weren't presented. And you're still too stupid to understand the difference between not falsifiable and not falsified."=======

Wow, how many hours do you spend on those Netherworld Gaming sites you visit each day ??? It's clearly had an effect on your view of reality. You don't even recognize what lying is. You think it's merely something that opposes your warped worldview as opposed to the lying bogus evidence you've tried to shove down others throats. Get a grip. Time is running out.

The Theory of Evolution is an explanatory framework that includes a number of interrelated claims. We might discover that birds diverged from theropods or from a more primitive archosaur. This would contradict one evolutionary claim or another, but wouldn't call into question the overall history. Just as if we discovered that Washington didn't really cut down the cherry tree would contradict one aspect of history without calling into question whether there really was an American Revolution.

To falsify evolution generally, you might find an organism without any plausible ancestor, such as a rabbit in the Precambrian, or a centaur.

Thought Provoker: OK then, what would falsify the idea of an Intelligent Designer 'poofing' everything into existence?

Eucene: This is humorous. People who actually do believe in an intelligent designer already have a foundational understanding of how things work in the real world.

You completely evaded the question. We know that humans design things. The question was how to falsify the claim that an Intelligent Designer 'poofing' everything into existence. . For that matter, can you provide a falsifiable hypothesis and its entailed predictions concerning the intelligent design of life?

Why does an explanation have to be falsifiable to be considered acceptable? Who gets to make the rules?

Because that's one of the basic premises of the scientific method. If you are putting forth a hypothesis, there has to be some way to show the hypothesis can be wrong. Not is wrong, can be wrong. It's an intellectual honesty thing.

That's why Intelligent Design Creationism is not considered science, because there's no way to falsify "GAWD poofed this into existence".

natschuster:Why does an explanation have to be falsifiable to be considered acceptable? Who gets to make the rules?

Nat if we have to explain this to you again, it's time for you to pick up a book and learn what science is. To use Carl Sagan's example, suppose I told you I had a fire breathing dragon in my garage that was not only invisible, but undetectable in any way. There would be no way to investigate that claim. Science is about investigating claims. If a claim is not falsifiable, even in principle, there is no way to determine if it is true.

Thorton:You make a big deal about this example having a goal (i.e. produce an antenna with specific characteristics). It did, but there was no guidance at all as to how that solution was implemented.

Of course there is "guidance" as to how these programs operate ...as well as a goal.I can GUARANTEE you that the programs which evolve amplifiers, for example, are written by people who know something about amplifierdesign.You can't just set a goal saying that I want an amplifier with such and such specifications and let the computer run without telling it how to make an amplifier in the first place!There are some "base rules" which have to be followed of couse, otherwise we might end up with a car or an elephant, instead of an amplifier!!

Of course the computer can evolve designs wich gradually fit the goal better, but without knowing how to make an amplifier it would not go anywhere.

Me: "He also called mustard seeds the 'smallest of seeds', so perhaps his goals were something other than science lessons."=====

Eocene: "How fascinating, you're quick to apply a mere illustrative application lesson of something taken from a common human prespective of that time period, yet you'll condemn the Genesis account at the drop of a hat(again to appease your buddies) as being nothing more than something that should be taken literally because a YEC worldview should be attacked at any and all costs for the truth(something I agree with BTW). But in this case it wreaks of hypocracy."

Eocene, that sentence doesn't even begin to make sense; you don't write clearly when you're agitated. I have never once 'condemned the Genesis account'. Please restate your objection with standard english sentence structure. What does "nothing more than something that should be taken literally" mean? What does it mean to "apply a mere illustrative application lesson of something taken from a common human perspective" in that context? I see plenty of english words in there, but they're strung together in a very ambiguous way. (and I think you mean 'reeks' instead of 'wreaks')

Eocene:Only an atheist desparately attempts to separate OOL from the word/term evoluion.

No, only someone who doesn't understand what either of those two terms mean desperately attempts to lump them together. Evolution is a theory about how life diversified from a common ancestor, not where that common ancestor came from. Saying "the theory of evolution doesn't explain the origin of life" is like saying "the theory of evolution doesn't explain the origin of planets."

I said: "I don't know. Would you say he was lying when he repeatedly confirmed the idea that physical ailments were caused by evil spirits and not by micro-organisms or genetic defects?"

Eocene:That's not the point and you know it, but again you are arguing again from an Atheistic perspective when you know that that one particular instance was not true.

But that is the point. If evolution is true, you take it to mean that Jesus was lying when he didn't explain it to his audience, yet you don't think it's 'lying' when he didn't explain microbiology or heliocentricity to them, two other subjects that they were also very mistaken on. You're being inconsistent on the point. Also, Is it an 'atheistic perspective' to think that diseases aren't caused by evil spirits? If so, there are an awful lot of atheists who attend my church.

So you don't believe mustard seeds are the smallest seeds??? Your god says they are. Is he lying???

I didn't say evil spirits don't exist. I said we now know they aren't the cause of infectious diseases like leprosy; micro-organisms are. Again, was he 'lying' when he said the mustard seed was the smallest seed? Or was he using the framework of understanding that his audience already had in place?

Hmm, I think I may have figured out why some posts will not stay. This could help others with the same problem.Post I've been trying to publish since last night was edited several times in MS Word. It looks like some fonts, formatting and/or macro codes from MS Word don't work well when all is pasted into blog publishing box. So I copied from Word ,pasted into Notepad .I guess it cleared up all the background coding . Than copied from Notepad to publishing box. Voila ! She worked.

Why does a claim have to be investigated to be considered acceptable? I can't investoigate teh dragon. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Maybe a dragon in your garage is an acceptable claim, just not a true one. And who gets to make the rules?

There are some "base rules" which have to be followed of couse, otherwise we might end up with a car or an elephant, instead of an amplifier!!

Ok, just to correct myself...Without any "guidance" you would of course not end up with an amplifier, and of course not an elephant or a car,either. You wouldn't get anything if you didn't tell the program what to do; that was my point. You don't get anything to select if you don't have anything to select between. Should be obvoius, but I guess my crappy joke about the cars and elephants could be misunderstood if you wanted to. Sorry.. :)

natschusterWhy does a claim have to be investigated to be considered acceptable? I can't investoigate teh dragon. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Maybe a dragon in your garage is an acceptable claim, just not a true one.

nat, if you can't see that you've answered your own question, I can't help you.

natschuster: Why does an explanation have to be falsifiable to be considered acceptable?

The scientific method is how we match hypotheses with observation. You propose a tentative claim, called the hypothesis, determine its empirical implications and then test them. In particular, the predicted results cleave the universe into two; one where the hypothesis is consistent with observation, and one where it is not.

Ideally, the hypothesis will make a single specific and distinguishing prediction, such that if it were to fail, then the hypothesis (or one of its assumptions) fails. This ideal is not always attainable. A positive result does not prove a hypothesis, but merely supports it. Multiple, independent lines of evidence will provide confidence.

An organism that doesn't have a plausible ancestor, such as a rabbit in the Precambrian or a centaur, would put the Theory of Common Descent in peril.

I can see why you think it's not a good idea to resurrect a thread in which you proposed a ridiculous thought experiment:

I have lots of electronic components at home and at my work desk solets make computer (or something like that) in the bag.

Lets fill 30% of the bag with tiny logic gates (simple rules for electron flow) and keep them floating. Attach little magnets to gates so they can self assemble (simple rules for self assembly ). Also, let's put small batteries in the bag and attach little magnets to them as well. Put in there tiny memory chip, too( lets not forget little magnets ).

Why does a claim have to be investigated to be considered acceptable? I can't investoigate teh dragon. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Maybe a dragon in your garage is an acceptable claim, just not a true one. And who gets to make the rules?

What do you mean by acceptable? Acceptable to whom? The default position in science is that claims are considered false until positive evidence for them is provided. So no evidence for your dragon means dragon is not considered to exist.

No one person or organization makes the rules. The scientific method and its associated protocols are virtually universally accepted and used for the simple reason that it has been proven to work. It's by far the best method mankind has ever devised for investigating, understanding, and predicting physical reality.

That's not to say you can't try other methods if you like. Click your heels together three times and wish you were in Kansas if you think it will produce a solution, or pray to Cthulhu. If you get results that work and are objective and repeatable, you're in like Flint. If not, into the rubbish pile your ideas go.

You know, you need to climb down off your condescending high horse and get a grip on reality. The question Slick was NOT addressed to me. The author of the question was THORTON, not "Thought Provoker". Unless you're of course you've just accidentally exposed Thorton or yourself for using other alter-egos on these boards which of course would not be hard to believe since after all, playing games is the ultimate purpose here as opposed to coming to any absolute truth.-----

Zachriel:

"We know that humans design things."=====

Well good for you.-----

Zachriel:

"The question was how to falsify the claim that an Intelligent Designer 'poofing' everything into existence. . "=====

Let's get one thing straight, it's your side's fogma who claims ownership to the "Poofing Miracle", not mine. Your insistance on the Trinitarian false gods of Magic-Luck-Chance and TinerBell's magic wand you claim are what turned mud into man. Hence "POOF" it's magic.-----

Zachriel:

"For that matter, can you provide a falsifiable hypothesis and its entailed predictions concerning the intelligent design of life?"=====

This is funny. I don't have to. My position is easy since all I have to do is point to almost every evolutionary experiment (like Thorton's failed NASA Evo-Program) as false proof of your god's existance. Every one of these experiments requires an Intelligent designer imput and without fail are always required.

This is nothing more than that same stupid political game playing of Left-Winger vrs Right-Winger and like the other side you can't seem to grasp that neither of you have the right answers for the problems currently plaguing mankind which are getting worse. Science ??? Science is merely a front for the behind the scenes power quest. Play your test the intellect game with those who'll take the bait.

This is bunk. Your side insists at being the keeper of the keys to the Natural Kingdom.-----

Thorton:

"The scientific method and its associated protocols are virtually universally accepted and used for the simple reason that it has been proven to work. It's by far the best method mankind has ever devised for investigating, understanding, and predicting physical reality."=====

The problem is your side by their actions past and present actually show they HATE the "Scientific Method". It's actually your enemy because more often than not you avoid it.

That's what every one of these examples Cornelius Hunter publishes on this blog demonstrate. This vague alluding to Darwinian Thought without actually step by step proofs as brought forth had the scientific method actually been used and therefore reviewed by an UNBIASED Panel of Peers. Unfortunately it's becoming tougher to actually find good honest Peers who aren't double agents.

The so-called Scientific Method FACTS are anything but facts. You don't seem to understand your gut-felt spiritistic emotional attachment to Darwinian Thought do not translate as FACT. You excuse and justify storytelling, fable fabrication and Myth manufacturing as necessary tools to spread and explain the Darwinian Gospel. That's not science, that's philosophy, ideology and religion. And that's what this whole mess is always about.

"So, when a computer program recognizes patterns or has a model of a chair or does mathematical calculations, are those 'things' immaterial?"=====

They were before the Intelligent Designing Programmer put them there. But then you believe Jesus Christ is your god so you already understood this concept. Quit arguing as a materialist, your atheistic skirt is showing out from under your cloak.

thornton: Science loves discovering the details! That;s why we have some of the top biologists and geneticists in the country actively doing OOL research.

Except the would-be scientist would prefer to avoid the detail of a number asked for in the previous thread. That question, rephrased:

Suppose a system were composed of a half-trillion cells, of a half-million types. Suppose each cell were composed of many billions of functioning parts. Given: that unimaginably many permutations of all of these parts are possible, how many random mutations of a trial-and-error game, would it take to come up with a super-efficient functioning system?

Suppose I'm a high school student, being readied for the brave new world of scientific materialism. What would be the answer? Would it be "that's a stupid question"?

Except the would-be scientist would prefer to avoid the detail of a number asked for in the previous thread.

LOL! A demand to see a meaningless number that no one in science has bothered wasting time and money researching. MSEE, I demand you provide a detailed list of every footstep you took going to and from classes in the last 15 years. If you can't provide it, then you admit you are lying about having any kind of college degree.

Suppose a system were composed of a half-trillion cells, of a half-million types. Suppose each cell were composed of many billions of functioning parts. Given: that unimaginably many permutations of all of these parts are possible, how many random mutations of a trial-and-error game, would it take to come up with a super-efficient functioning system

Random trials alone won't do it. An iterative process of random results filtered by selection and used for each subsequent generation would. That's Biology 101, which is probably why you don't understand it. Total time would depend on the time of each generation and the feedback from environmental pressures. If we were modeling this on a Cray XT5 supercomputer, the answer would probably be less than a day.

Suppose I'm a high school student, being readied for the brave new world of scientific materialism. What would be the answer? Would it be "that's a stupid question"?

The first time you asked you'd be given the correct answer, just like here. And the second. And the third. Just like here. When you act like a stupid Creationist git who ignores the answer and keeps asking the same question for the tenth time, "that's a stupid question" becomes a legitimate reply.

MSEE: Suppose a system were composed of a half-trillion cells, of a half-million types.

What? A few cc's of pond water?

MSEE: Suppose each cell were composed of many billions of functioning parts.

A bacterial genome is a few megabases. Primordial life was probably even simpler.

MSEE: Given: that unimaginably many permutations of all of these parts are possible, how many random mutations of a trial-and-error game, would it take to come up with a super-efficient functioning system.

There are trillions of trillions of mutations occurring in the world every day today.

Why is it that the same people comment on Cornelius' blog all the time in every one of his posts? The same nay sayers and the same IDers? It would be refreshing to hear the perspective of a PHd scientist on here not just the same fanatics who rarely know what they are talking about. BTW, Cornelius has no invested interest in debating in any one of his entries.He's just posting his perspective, not some scientific treatise for goodness sake! Leave the debating to profesional scientists who know what they are talking about and chill out for a second.

It isn't enough to have a lot of mutations. You have to have all the right mutations in one organism. For the sake of arguement, lets say that an adaptation needs 10 mutations, and a specific mutation happens once in a million reproduction events. That means that we need a million individuals to get the frist step. That's not hard. But then that individual organism needs to produce a million offspring before we get the next mutation. And so on. In order to get all ten mutations we need 1,000,000^10 organisms. That's too many.

It isn't enough to have a lot of mutations. You have to have all the right mutations in one organism. For the sake of arguement, lets say that an adaptation needs 10 mutations, and a specific mutation happens once in a million reproduction events. That means that we need a million individuals to get the frist step. That's not hard. But then that individual organism needs to produce a million offspring before we get the next mutation. And so on. In order to get all ten mutations we need 1,000,000^10 organisms. That's too many.

Where is the effect of selection in your model?

You are also calculating the odds of one specific combination of mutations and assuming that only that unique combination will do the job. That is called the lottery fallacy. The probability of any specific number being the winner are extremely small. The probability that someone will win is 100%

I don't think selection will have any effect. And, even if more than one combination will the job, there are only a limited number of combinations that will work. Since there are a lot more possibilities that won't work.

It isn't enough to have a lot of mutations. You have to have all the right mutations in one organism. For the sake of arguement, lets say that an adaptation needs 10 mutations, and a specific mutation happens once in a million reproduction events. That means that we need a million individuals to get the frist step. That's not hard. But then that individual organism needs to produce a million offspring before we get the next mutation. And so on. In order to get all ten mutations we need 1,000,000^10 organisms. That's too many.

Nat, here is why selection is so important. I’ll even use your numbers. Let’s call the animals Mooks (for lack of a better name). Say the local resources cap their population size at 1,000,000 and they reproduce once a year.

The first Mook has a mutation that gives his offspring a survival advantage over his neighbors. Let’s say Mooks have 10 offspring per generation, then the parents die. Normal Mooks have 9 out of 10 die before reproducing, but ‘mutated’ Mooks have only 8 out of 10 die. So every generation on average we get one more ‘mutated ‘ Mook per reproduction event surviving than the non-mutated variety.

After one generation we’ll have 2 mutated Mooks. After two generations we’ll have 4. After three generations we’ll have 8. Continue on and we find that in only twenty generations we have over 1,000,000 Mooks, the whole population with the first mutation.

Now the cycle starts over again. One of the 1,000,000 Mooks has a second mutation that gives it an advantage over the others. In another 20 generation all Mooks will have two mutations.

Repeat the cycle again, and again. We now find that to get to your 10 mutation number, we don’t need 1,000,000^10 animals, we need only 20*10 or 200 generations. That’s a total of only 200 years for your adaptation to arise.

The rapid spread of the mutations is due to cumulative effects of selection.

That’s why selection is so critical when modeling evolution.

* Before anyone whines, note that this is an extremely simplified example and does not include most of the parameters of a real population genetics case.

Btu how do we know that there is any advantage to the first mutation? The adaptation in quetion requires ten mutations. And what happens if one of the mutations happens to be a disadvantage without all the mutations wowrking together. For example, you need two proteins working together. If you just have one without, the other, it is a waste of precious resources.

natschuster: For the sake of arguement, lets say that an adaptation needs 10 mutations, and a specific mutation happens once in a million reproduction events. That means that we need a million individuals to get the frist step. That's not hard.

Or a ten thousand individuals for a hundred generations.

natschuster: But then that individual organism needs to produce a million offspring before we get the next mutation. And so on. In order to get all ten mutations we need 1,000,000^10 organisms. That's too many.

Sorry, no. It's additive, not multiplicative. There is no certainty of fixation, but after sufficient trials, there is a finite average time to fixation of the specified beneficial mutation. Once that occurs, then an equal time for each succeeding mutation.

natschuster: I don't think selection will have any effect. And, even if more than one combination will the job, there are only a limited number of combinations that will work. Since there are a lot more possibilities that won't work.

We can directly observe selection, that is, show that certain traits tend to reproductive advantage, so we know it works.

natschuster: And what happens if the original mutation mutates back.

A reversion would tend to be deleterious and unlikely to reach fixation.

natschuster: Or a random mutation happens that sets the whole process back.

If a mutation is beneficial it will tend to increase in the population. If it is deleterious, it will tend to decrease in the population.

natschuster:And what happens if the original mutation mutates back. Or a random mutation happens that sets the whole process back.

Then obviously, the individual or lineage with that detrimental mutation would be out-competed by its peers. It feels patronizing to point this out, but mutations don't occur simultaneously in multiple individuals. If a generation of organisms have this beneficial mutation and one individual in the next generation is born with a mutation that reverses or negates it, this doesn't affect the other individuals that still have the beneficial mutation. The beneficial mutation will still continue to spread throughout the population. If, a few generations down the line, another mutation occurs in an individual that negates the beneficial one, again, it doesn't affect other individuals.

Nat, it seems like you're putting a lot of energy into not understanding this.

Nat, beside what Zachziel and Derick pointed out, you're missing the boat on another important point. In your mental model you are assuming that your adaptation requires all 10 mutations be in place to function at all. In the real world that is not the case. In every real world case (eyes, heart, blowhole and flippers on whales, etc.) the functions we see today were preceded by earlier, less complex versions that still functioned and provided a survival advantage. It's not "all or nothing" as you seem to be stuck on.

There are indeed known cases where a particular evolutionary step required two mutations, the first of which is deleterious. But as long as the deleterious one was not immediately fatal it will still spread through the population too. Then as long as there are animals around that have the first mutation when the second mutation happens, the process of evolution keeps going. That is exactly what happened in the Lenski E coli experiment BTW.

I'm going to ask you one last time what reading you have been doing on your own to try and understand this. Did you read the tutorial from U.C. Berkeley I gave you?

Why should any of us keep trying to help you when you won't help yourself?

But at the molecular level, so many systems have so many parts that are critical. And they have to fit together just so. So we have to say that here was some sort benefit for each step. But that is highly congectural.

And if one of the steps is harmful, means that there is a reporductive disadavantage, then we have less individuals. This means that there might not be enough individuals around for the subsequent mutations to happen.

And how fra did Lenski's e.coli go? how many mutations were involved and how many individuals?I understand that it took thousands of generations, and millions of individuals to produce an adaptation that produced involved only two mutations.

You had said that mutations can't plausibly be selected sequentially, then you said selection couldn't do anything. When those were refuted, you simply changed the subject. Presumably, you will later repeat the same argument.

natschuster: But at the molecular level, so many systems have so many parts that are critical. And they have to fit together just so. So we have to say that here was some sort benefit for each step. But that is highly conjectural.

To answer your latest objection, again, you have to start by understanding the historical context, and that requires understanding Common Descent.

natschuster: And if one of the steps is harmful, means that there is a reproductive disadvantage, then we have less individuals. This means that there might not be enough individuals around for the subsequent mutations to happen.

It's called fecundity. Organisms are capable of producing more than replacement numbers of offspring. Indeed, without limits, growth is exponential. However, there are limits, and that means selection.

natschuster: I understand that it took thousands of generations, and millions of individuals to produce an adaptation that produced involved only two mutations.

Your understanding is incorrect. There were several adaptations observed, along with hundreds of millions of mutations, of which a hundred or so reached fixation, with 10-20 being beneficial. The reason why there has been so much written about the citrate mutation is because it depended upon an earlier, contingent mutation. It's not the only mutation, just a particularly interesting one to evolutionary biologists.

I assumed all along that, if an adaptation requires ten steps to confer some advantage, and each step is necessary to the whole, then it does not confer an advantage unless all the mutations are in place. I was discussing the molecular level because that seems to be the case. Maybe I wasn't clear at the beginning. Saying that all the steps confered some benefit does is conjectural at best.

Did any of the adaptation observed in e.coli involve, lets say ten mutations in sequence? That's what we are discussing.

natschuster said: It isn't enough to have a lot of mutations. You have to have all the right mutations in one organism. For the sake of arguement, lets say that an adaptation needs 10 mutations, and a specific mutation happens once in a million reproduction events. That means that we need a million individuals to get the frist step. That's not hard. But then that individual organism needs to produce a million offspring before we get the next mutation. And so on. In order to get all ten mutations we need 1,000,000^10 organisms. That's too many.

Not to mention natural selection probably wouldn't be a factor in retaining said mutation(s) while waiting for the rest to come about... by pure random chance, no less.

I assumed all along that, if an adaptation requires ten steps to confer some advantage, and each step is necessary to the whole, then it does not confer an advantage unless all the mutations are in place.

That's flat out wrong, and we've explained why it's flat out wrong several times now.

You've convinced me that you have no interest in learning but are just trolling like dimbulb hardy and the rest of the willfully ignorant Creationists.

Proteins need active sites and binding sites. So if a new mutation creates a new protein to add to the adaptation you have to change the acive site and the binding sites, so it can attach to the right protein in the complex. So you need to make several changes to happen simultaniously. Then yuo also have to copy and change the control sequences, so the new protein is expressed at the right time. So a new part to a new protein complex might require a whole bunch of mutations.

Troy: "if you would apply the same standard of evidence across the board, you would be laughing at your fellow creationists."

Hardy, he's right. I was a young earth creationist for over 25 years and one day I decided that since all truth is God's truth, I'd give evolution a shot and do some unbiased (as possible) research. When I saw how overwhelming the case for common descent was, I was quite frankly embarrassed. I was embarrassed at how easily I'd let my mind be clouded by theological preconceptions, but I was also embarrassed at how badly I'd been slandering the gospel by advocating a position that was not only demonstrably false, but kind of stupid as well.

If you're like I was, you may reject evolution because you think it's not compatible Christianity. I assure you, that's not the case. (see www.biologos.org) If Christianity is true, and if evolution is true, then they cannot be in conflict, because truth cannot contradict truth.

I recommend reading "The Language of God" by Francis Collins, and "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne.

natschuster: I assumed all along that, if an adaptation requires ten steps to confer some advantage, and each step is necessary to the whole, then it does not confer an advantage unless all the mutations are in place.

natschuster: For an adaptation that requires multiple steps, how do we know that each step confers an advantage? Or is that just assumed?

Common Descent allows us to order the historical events. You can't expect to support every transition, but you should be able to find some cases where we can discern incremental, selectable evolution, and homologies supporting the overall pattern. Also, we should be able to directly observe posited mechanisms of evolution.

Mammals don't just spring up. They are modified amniotes. Amniotes don't just come out of nowhere, but are preceded by primitive tetrapods, modified deuterstomes, and so on.